3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the learned Executing Court had no jurisdiction to correct the
clerical error in the plaint. He was not much worried about the
correction of mistake in the decree sheet. His plea was that after the
finalization of the judgment and decree, the Executing Court had no
jurisdiction to allow the correction of the plaint.
4. A similar question came up before this Court in the case reported as Nazir Ahmad and 6 others Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCMR 163). The case also related to a pre-emption matter. At the stage of execution of the decree, passed in the pre-emption suit, correction of particulars of the land involved was sought and the same was allowed by the learned Executing Court. While so doing, the learned Executing Court had directed the plaintiff (decreeholder) to make the necessary correction in the plaint as well. When order made in the said case, was assailed before this Court, it was ruled by a learned Bench comprising Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafique Tarar (as he then was) that no infirmity or legal flaw in the order of the High Court, sought to be challenged by means of an appeal, had been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. The petition for leave to appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
5. The case before us stands on a better footing as compared to the case of Nazir Ahmad and 6 others, inasmuch as, in the case under report, there was no application for amendment of plaint and yet the learned executing Court had directed the plaintiff (decree- holder) to amend the plaint so as to do away with the same error which had been pointed out in the decree-sheet and was desired to be corrected. As against this, in the case in hand, there was an application by the plaintiff (decree-holder) herself, which was allowed by the learned executing Court while permitting correction of the decree-sheet, so as to do away with the clerical error.
6. Respectfully relying on the opinion expressed in the case of Nazir Ahmad and 6 others, we find nothing wrong with the order of the learned Bench of the Lahore High Court and, therefore, leave is refused to the petitioners to appeal against the said order.
4. A similar question came up before this Court in the case reported as Nazir Ahmad and 6 others Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (1995 SCMR 163). The case also related to a pre-emption matter. At the stage of execution of the decree, passed in the pre-emption suit, correction of particulars of the land involved was sought and the same was allowed by the learned Executing Court. While so doing, the learned Executing Court had directed the plaintiff (decreeholder) to make the necessary correction in the plaint as well. When order made in the said case, was assailed before this Court, it was ruled by a learned Bench comprising Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Muhammad Rafique Tarar (as he then was) that no infirmity or legal flaw in the order of the High Court, sought to be challenged by means of an appeal, had been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. The petition for leave to appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
5. The case before us stands on a better footing as compared to the case of Nazir Ahmad and 6 others, inasmuch as, in the case under report, there was no application for amendment of plaint and yet the learned executing Court had directed the plaintiff (decree- holder) to amend the plaint so as to do away with the same error which had been pointed out in the decree-sheet and was desired to be corrected. As against this, in the case in hand, there was an application by the plaintiff (decree-holder) herself, which was allowed by the learned executing Court while permitting correction of the decree-sheet, so as to do away with the clerical error.
6. Respectfully relying on the opinion expressed in the case of Nazir Ahmad and 6 others, we find nothing wrong with the order of the learned Bench of the Lahore High Court and, therefore, leave is refused to the petitioners to appeal against the said order.
1996 SCMR 875
Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
68495/17
0 comments:
Post a Comment